Talk:Scientific consensus on climate change

Proposal #2

Counter proposal:

• Article down to semi
• 1RR limit for all
• Removal of NPOV tag

William M. Connolley (talk) 19:09, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. William M. Connolley (talk) 19:09, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
2. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
3. CurtisSwain (talk) 19:28, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
4. Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
5. Verbal chat 19:54, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
6. Guettarda (talk) 19:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
7. Count Iblis (talk) 21:04, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
8. Ratel ► RATEL ◄ 05:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
9. Nigelj (talk) 12:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
10. Why are we voting on this? We don't vote. Just do it. --TS 21:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
11. Tjsynkral with the caveat that 1RR shall not apply to obvious WP:OR--Tjsynkral (talk) 03:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
12. Apis (talk) 13:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
13. Airborne84 (talk) 00:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. --GoRight (talk) 19:32, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

   Brittainia (talk) 20:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)This editor has been blocked for sockpuppetry, advocacy and edit warring. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

2. NPOV tag should remain until dispute is settled ATren (talk) 20:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
3. Silly proposal, last I saw these eds where ignoring a NPOV dispute. Are they now agreeing to a dispute? If so, then under wiki rules not there own. That's another issue with WP:OWN, like they can set the rules for a page. I yield no consent to rules from heavily interested parties. Mediators may help set rules. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 22:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
4. Agree with semi, but do not agree with the other standards. Although I am not aware of what the NPOV issues are, I suspect that if the article were renamed to describe "Scientific Organizations stated opinions" or something like that, it would be less subject to NPOV disputes. It would be kind of a sister article to the individual scientists opposing list.--Blue Tie(talk) 03:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
5. We still have an absurdly pointless set of tags on the Anthony Watts (blogger) page, which I'm told need to stay there in perpetuo, because a AfD resulted in stalemate. The same editors arguing that the NPOV tag on this article is pointless edit-war to keep the Watts tag in place. Let it not be thought that a small group of Wikipedians are disingenuous & hypocritical; the tag needs to remain in place until the discussion resolves. Alex Harvey (talk) 05:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

   Agree - Yes ... right on ... renaming (without a single "Opinion" category) and following the structure set out in Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial#Space_and_balance would be simple help here for me and to balance better with the other articles. Zulu Papa 5 ☆(talk) 04:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

6. Removal of the tag has nought to do with imposing a 1RR restriction. As long as there is a dispute about POV, the NPOV tag is not a stigma on the article, it is only a notice that some people disagree. Which appears to be a fact of life. Collect (talk) 15:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

   Do you think that every controversial article should be tagged indefinitely? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

   You appear to misread my comment -- which is that where there is apparently substantial active disagreement, that a POV tag is not onerous to an article. It is intended to inform readers, and not be a stigma for the article. In the case at hand, there appears to be substantial and continuing disagreement, which has nought to do with "indefinitely" at all. Is there, in fact, current substantial disagreement as to POV for this article at all? Do you believe that the POV tag damages the article at this point? Collect (talk) 16:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

   The NPOV comment requires a reason. You cannot assert that the dispute over the tag is a valid reason for the tag, we need some actual dispute about the content of the page. Pages cannot be tagged indefinitely for no reason. Verbal chat 17:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

   And the reason(s) have been stated multiple times. --GoRight (talk) 22:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

It is not I that needs to point out that there have been a number of discussions on these topics regarding POV. I only point out that where such discussions exist, that the POV tag is proper. Indeed, this section on "proposal 2" is not the one in which to discuss whether POV exists, or what the POV might be. Collect (talk) 17:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of Brittainia's block.

[indef blocked for Persistent WP:ADVOCACY, edit warring, and abuse of multiple accounts -Kim D. Petersen (talk)] You can't undue someone's vote retroactively. They obviously weren't blocked when they made it. --GoRight (talk) 01:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC) By that standard if one individual voted 100 times using sockpuppets the duplicate votes couldn't be removed if the socks were later discovered. This comment shows more about your editing philosophy than you may intend. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC) I have raised the issuehere. If this is indeed a confirmed case of an abuse of a sock I will remove my objection. --GoRight(talk) 01:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC) Updated: "This comment shows more about your editing philosophy than you may intend." - Aren't you the one that has been complaining so much about people impugning you with things that you did not state? Please return to your glass house.

abstain

1. While I would be okay with this, I am cognizant of it failing to address the concerns of others that led us here (concerns which, to me, seem at least partly valid, but which do not constitute POV, especially not on this page.); and I see no reason why we can't resolve those issues, while also simultaneously achieving the outcomes in proposal #2. ‒ Jaymax✍14:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Motion to close

Yes, there is irony with time invested in Proposal #2 and "Procedural disputes block climate accord" [1] let the horse go in peace. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 18:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

GoRight: "The dispute is over the exclusion of the legitimate points of view concerning "the consensus" which currently occurs on THIS article"

I urge GoRight to drop this point. Because if this article is going to say anything about claims that a consensus does not exist, it can only do that by debunking such claims, as that is the prevailing POV in the literature. There are no two equal sides on this issue. A NPOV wiki article will have to say that the sceptics are wrong when they say that there is no consensus. I'm sure that this is not what GoRight wants to see.

Another issue is that the sceptic POV should be mentioned here on Wikipedia. But because this is a such a minority opinion, you could hardly mention that the Global Warming article without violating WP:Weight. That's why we have the Global Warming Controversy article. There is plenty of room to write about claims and counter claims on the scientific consensus there. Count Iblis (talk) 21:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Alas, you still don't understand the thrust of the problem. There is an entire body of topics, debates, and controversies surrounding "the consensus" that exist entirely within the public (as opposed to the scientific) domain and they have absolutely nothing to do with "debunking such claims". In fact, my core argument here specifically relies upon the fundamental assumption that such a "scientific consensus" does in fact exist. To provide but one such example, a discussion of the public opinion trends associated with "the consensus" is a perfectly valid topic of discussion that is wholly unrelated to "debunking anything" and doesn't rely upon peer-reviewed anything. My NPOV issue is that this article, which given the current configuration of the redirects and wikilinks is the de facto "main article" on any discussion of the consensus, is systematically blocking any discussion of those public domain points of view. So either allow them to be expressed here, or move the "main article" for the discussion of the consensus elsewhere. Climate change consensus would appear to be a natural choice for such an alternate location. --GoRight (talk) 00:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I do understand you, but if you include public opinions on the consensus, then everything that is written about the public opinion, including criticisms of some sceptical opinions is fair game. That will then likely open the door to far more editing disputes which will be fought with wiki policies like WP:Weight, WP:Undue, WP:RS. That's why content forking to move sceptical opinions to separate articles were they can be discussed in greater detail is better. Count Iblis (talk) 15:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

It's well enough covered in the denialism article, to my mind. We don't need to go into it specifically at all, really. --Nigelj (talk) 21:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Nigel, up a bit you say: "But whether or not greenhouse gasses are causing dangerous, man-made global warming is not a matter of opinion. Matters of opinion include issues like (list)" - I would add to your list: "whether or not there is scientific consensus that greenhouse gasses are causing dangerous, man-made global warming" as a matter of opinion. As evidence I would offer your local talkback radio station. This is the nub, I think, of GR's concern, and touches on ZP5's key concern I think. Proper coverage, not of AGW science (nominally factual) per se, but of the debate around consensus, is stifled - only one side of the debate around consensus is permitted on this page, despite the debate around consensus being a hot topic with strongly held and strongly disagreeing opinions held my many. Why can we not cover the consensus issue (both sides) over at Climate Change Consensus which appropriatly kicks off strongly with the (overwhelming) majority scientific view - the contested section here is ALREADY duplicated there. ‒ Jaymax✍ 22:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, per Scientific Consensus "Scientific consensus is not by itself a scientific argument, and it is not part of the scientific method." - so is it appropriate to cover it in any depth on a page where inclusion criteria is largely driven by the sceintific method? ‒ Jaymax✍ 22:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, per NPOV#Neutrality_disputes_and_handling, "there is probably not a good reason to discuss some assumption on a given page, if an assumption is best discussed in depth on some other page. Some brief, unobtrusive pointer might be appropriate, however." ‒ Jaymax✍ 22:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Would GoRight be happy with a link back to the Global Warming Controversy article? Alex Harvey (talk) 00:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

No, because there is already a spinoff from that article specifically dedicated to this topic, it is Climate change consensus. The solution I would prefer is that this article simply include a brief statement and a pointer to that article as the "main source" for this topic, at which point it only makes sense to update the consensus related redirects to point there as well. --GoRight (talk) 00:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

In fact, my core argument here specifically relies upon the fundamental assumption that such a "scientific consensus" does in fact exist. - Since the current article makes no POV claim based on this phrase (it only mentions that it is of interest and that several scientific organizations use it themselves), and since this article is about scientific not public opinion, it seems this argument is redundant. DHooke1973 (talk) 05:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Background to RfC

• Yes it is balanced. Given that, no it doesn't need an NPOV tag. Yes, 1RR limit would help avoid disruption William M. Connolley (talk) 22:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
• No, the Consensus section only is unbalanced. The POV tag should stay while the article includes a section on the debate around whether there is consensus, but restricts that to only contributions to the "popular discussion" from scientific societies. The section is already duplicated at Climate change consensus, and striking the section here and adding a brief pointer, per NPOV#Making_necessary_assumptions, would resolve the POV issue. ‒ Jaymax✍ 23:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Extended content

Given the current configuration of the two articles, what Jaymax said makes a lot of sense.--CurtisSwain (talk) 23:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC) "The POV tag should stay while the article includes a section on the debate around whether there is consensus, but restricts that to only contributions to the "popular discussion" from scientific societies." - I agree. This is in essence the point I have been making and it is the basis of my proposed solution above. My only other related point is that as long as the redirects and wikilinks related to a discussion of "the consensus" are used to direct people here (thus effectively establishing this as the "main article" for that specific discussion) then there is still a problem, IMHO. I have begun the process of trying to rectify that specific point but my efforts yesterday were "hampered". --GoRight (talk) 00:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• The article topic is too poorly defined to enable any consensus to emerge. The reason is that it is a content fork from the article Climate change. identifying the article as a fork is not hard to do because the form of the title runs contrary to Wikipedia:Naming conventions, as it uses the convention "Scientific opinion on...." in its title which seperates in from Climate change in name only. I have not seen this done for any other article topic, i.e the "opinions" (aka the sources) are never seperated from the overarching article topic (climate change). --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 00:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• This hatnote, "This article does not include the views of individual scientists, individual universities, or laboratories, nor [2] lists of individuals such aspetitions" demonstrates a POV issue with the article for excluding views and many sources in the article history. The IPCC mission should be included for context. In addition, other opinion categorizes must be briefly included (following Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial#Space_and_balance) to balance the article view. The title should be explicitly objective following category guidance. As is now, the article is a Coatrack for "documenting" .... "scientific opinion" as singly manifested by the IPCC mission. No org mission should be held above Wiki NPOV, non-negotiable. There are sources to reasonably summarize and include other opinions here. Edit wars can be avoided when warriors abstain. No need for 1RR if the warrior(s) acknowledge their waring and abstain. (Thanks for the RFC. Let me know if anyone has questions.) Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 00:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• (Mostly duplicated from above) As long as this article is being utilized as the "main article" for a discussion of "the consensus", as evidenced by the fact that redirects and wikilinks referring to "the consensus" are bringing users to THIS article, then the discussion of "the consensus" on THIS article must include a discussion of viewpoints (i.e. from the public domain) other than purely peer-reviewed ones. The fact that the peer-reviewed argument is being used to prevent those other points of view from being included is the source of the NPOV dispute on THIS article. So, there are two possible options for resolving the dispute:
  1. Move the discussion of "the consensus" to a page where the peer-reviewed argument won't be used to eliminate discussion of otherwise valid points of view, or
  2. Allow those points of view to be expressed on this page as WP:NPOV demands.

I have been pursuing the first approach as this will enable those who prefer to have a place that describes only the peer-reviewed opinions to continue to do so, although the termpositions would be more appropriate. The dispute is not over the listing of the scientific positions of the various organizations represented here. The dispute is not over attempts to undermine the scientific credibility of the positions articulated on this page. The dispute is over the exclusion from THIS article legitimate points of view from the public domain which focus on "the consensus". --GoRight (talk) 00:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Extended content
Agree with GoRight. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 01:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• Here's a thought: The primary purpose of an RfC is requesting outside input. And as usual, the outside input is being drowned out by the same old folks restating their same old positions. Let's reboot the process and those of us who've already stated our positions ad nauseam agree to back off and let others get a word in. What say? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Extended content

Beeblebrox said "it would be best if each made a brief statement here summarizing their position" - some are more brief than others - follow-on discussion (including this entry of mine) is mostly unhelpful ‒ Jaymax✍ 03:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC) GR, would you consider removing your discussion reply to me; ZP5 would you consider removing your disussion reply to GR; Curtis, would you consider moving your comment to be its own statement; Jaymax, would you consider deleting your discussion reply to SBHB? Oh, that's me, right, yah sure - I'll do it once it's had time to be seen by the involved parties. ‒ Jaymax✍ 03:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC) collapse in good ‒ Jaymax✍ 06:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• This article is about the scientific opinion on climate change, which is distinct from, and not impacted by (but has impact on) the political or public opinion on climate change. The article does this by describing the views from major scientific bodies, and surveys that try to determine scientists opinion - as such it has included all viewpoints from these aspects. What this means and what, if any, impacts this view may have on political or public opinion and the debates about it etc. lies outside of the articles purpose, and is discussed at Climate change consensus, Global warming controversy and to some extent at Politics of global warming. Perhaps we should have another article as well called Public opinion on climate change (seems there is a lot of material), but it certainly doesn't belong here.--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Extended content

Q: Who's "purpose" does this article serve? And how?Zulu Papa 5 ☆(talk) 04:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC) (edit conflict)It serves the purpose of describing the scientific opinion on climate change, it does it by documenting every official statement that has been made from major scientific bodies on climate change as well as all surveys that we know of that have been conducted on the subject (including two from Bray & von Storch who are "unofficial" (ie. unpublished)).--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 05:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC) You may have confused "purpose" with "function". "Purposes" serve an intended subject (i.e. a person or org, while "functions" serve another object. You have described, "scientific opinion" as an object here. I have not seen you identify who (person or org) the article serves? Sincerely, Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 15:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC) Kim, does the article also represent the Pielke's perspectives, he leads a fairly large group of researchers after all, and does it represent von Storch's, Zorita's (yep, there are more bloggers out there these days). Does the article represent the UAH's views (Christy & Spencer)? Does it represent Lindzen's group's views? I think this may be GR et al's point.Alex Harvey (talk) 05:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC) We do not document individual opinions, nor do we document self-selected lists of specific viewpoints - such as the 1700 british scientists[3] who just signed a statement to confirm that there is a consensus. The reason for this is simple: They do not show what the collective opinion is - but instead how singular (or polar/biased) viewpoints see things. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 05:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment

• The crux of this debate seems to hinge on two issues:

• Is the article balanced with regards to point of view and which sources are accepted as reliable enough to merit inclusion here?
• Is the above problem bad enough to merit keeping a {{pov}} tag on the article?

• Since there is already a lot of debate from the currently involved parties, it would be best if each made a brief statement here summarizing their position, and then let previously uninvolved editors comment for a bit. If you do not feel this summary adequately represents the key points, please note that in your statement. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

• Addendum: Maybe we can kill two birds with one stone here by addressing this as well: Should the article be placed on a editing restriction limiting editors to one revert per day in order to encourage discussion rather than revert warring? Beeblebrox (talk) 23:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Note: in the interests of encouraging outside participation, I have copied the opening statements to #Background to RfC, above; this method has worked before, but if it is undesirable here please simply undo it and remove this statement. Valued outside commenters, Beeblebrox's opening statement looks like a fair summary of the remaining points of contention, but please review the material in the above section for more detail to this dispute. - 2/0 (cont.) 08:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I have temporarily turned off automatic archiving so that this thread will remain active. Please manually move stale or inactive threads to the archive, and reactivate the bot after the RfC closes on 2009-01-12. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm still pretty new to this page. I can't fully address the editing restriction proposition since I don't know all the details about how that works. However, anything that promotes discussion instead of unilateral editing that is likely to be immediately controversial is a good thing.

After some thought, I support the removal of the tag. The proposal to add a discussion regarding the debate on the consensus is an interesting one. I agree with GoRight that that discussion must be included in Wikipedia in the interest of completeness. I don't think this article is the right place, and the argument that omitting it from this article violates NPOV is not compelling. I would support it here except that I think it would lead to a slippery slope that would quickly grow and overshadow the specific dynamics this article describes.Airborne84 (talk) 12:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The only remotely sensible objections are about the Climate Change Consensus page. There is no sensible objection remaining to the current version of this page. If you want to delete the Climate Change Consensus and fork, fine. Propose on that page's talk, and the main page's talk.

There is a proposal to keep the tag "while the article includes a section on the debate around whether there is consensus"

This has been done - "Surveys of scientists and scientific literature".

The "Consensus" section merely reports that people want to know what the scientific consensus is and that scientific organizations use this word themselves.

The remaining objections to this page boil down to "Are scientific organizations reliable sources for scientific opinion?" and "Public opinion isn't represented on the scientific opinion page."

The answer to both these questions is a straightforward "Remove the POV tag now."

The POV tag on this article is ridiculous and reflects poorly on wikipedia. Unless, of course, you want to put a POV tag on the evolution scientific consensus pages, and also the relevant cosmology pages - then we can all breathe easy and forget about wikipedia being taken seriously at all. DHooke1973 (talk) 23:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Meta-discussion

It must be obvious by now that we're not going to get full buy-in to anything from everyone. The closest we have to consensus is "option 2" well above, now at 12 13-6 in favour. Nor are we going to have a focussed discussion on the talk page, without admin intervention - people are too ill-disciplined. There is an RFC still pending above - some of the "regulars" here haven't even bothered to respond William M. Connolley (talk) 20:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I would note again (without prejudice to the rest of the proposal) that page protection levels are not determined by polling, and there has not been a serious problem with ip or non-autoconfirmed users, so the semi-protection provision is kind of toothless/pointless. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

@WMC - That proposal is stale. It is discussing a NPOV template that is no longer on the page, and the protection in question has already expired. --GoRight (talk) 22:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Nope. Equivalent template is in place, equivalent protection too. The proposal is current. Naturally, if you wish to treat your vote as expired I'll be happy to consider it 12-5 instead William M. Connolley (talk) 22:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Wait. What? William, do you mean Proposal #2 under the section protection as in:

• Article down to semi
• 1RR limit for all
• Removal of NPOV tag

If so, then yes, that's what most editors agree on. So, we should do that.--CurtisSwain (talk) 01:36, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

This site is not governed by majority rule. There is no consensus. --GoRight (talk) 01:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

While that is true, it is also true that ‘’Consensus is not the same as unanimity’’:

…"after people have had a chance to state their viewpoint, it may become necessary to ignore someone or afford them less weight in order to move forward with what the group feels is best….Insisting on unanimity can allow a minority opinion to filibuster the process."

--CurtisSwain (talk) 05:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is the one. We've tried everything else, time for that I think William M. Connolley (talk) 08:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The filibuster is occurring over silly (waring) rules put forth by folks (possibly) acting on the sole behalf of the IPCC mission, as if they own the POV in this article. Addressing the NPOV issues without "feigned incomprehension" will move the article forward. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 14:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

You need to say things much more clearly and not make it personal. As far as I can see you are saying that there is a WP:neutral point of view or weight issue with the article. What you primarily need for that is to show the consensus that the leader says is there is not there, you have to find a citation for a scientific society where the society disagree to a large extent with the conclusions endorsed by the IPCC. The statement there is verifiable, you have to produce a WP:Verifiable citation which contradicts it to some degree. Dmcq (talk) 16:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Dmcq, point taken about sources [4] which are many here. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 17:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

@Dcmq - "What you primarily need for that is to show the consensus that the leader says is there is not there ..." - That is a silly statement. You are, in effect, asking us to show that the majority here agrees that they have created an article in violation of WP:NPOV. Such a thing can never be obtained since the majority will simply refuse to acknowledge the point ... exactly as we have been seeing over the past week or more. --GoRight (talk) 18:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I too am puzzled (I'm ignoing the PA stuff). Which rules? What filibuster? Do you mean, you don't like proposal 2? If so, we already know that William M.

Connolley (talk) 16:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Nothing personal intended ... it's all wiki business, right. Perhaps, I should make a few sourced content changes when the article opens .... then clarify things in an RfC here after the above one closes? Seems like I should have an RfC go here. Would you agree, WMC? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 17:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

There's quite a few there but they seem to be individuals and newspapers, could you narrow it down please to something relevant to the subject of the article? An official statement from a scientific society is what is needed not articles by individual scientists. Which ones do you think are especially relevant? Thanks. Dmcq (talk) 18:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Dmcq, the sources are relevant for anyone who is open to accepting this Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial#Space_and_balance. Talk about what "Scientific Opinion" means might be better directed to the Opinion article, where verified sources can be addressed there. Perhaps we should start a new thread here on the specific topic of these sources to provide a balanced "Climate Change Opinions" article here (please note the plural "Opinions"), yes? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk)`

You seem unwilling to point to whatever it is that you think is relevant. It is up to you to show why the article does not have a neutral point of view. You have not done so. I have looked at the opinion article and I am pretty certain that if a lot of scientific societies say one thing and there aren't any that disagree to any great extent than they should be given much greater WP:WEIGHT than individual dissenting scientists. You have to find a scientific society or something of equal weight that backs up whatever point it is you have to oppose what is there. This article is about scientific opinion not climate change opinions in general. Dmcq (talk) 19:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I pointed to the sources (with my comments) and to the NPOV guidance. I have made changes and will add further sourced content to address my concerns. The article currently has undue weight (like a coatrack). When editors hold one opinion category as a distinctly separate article, they are attempting to negotiate a POV, which is in clear opposition to NPOV principles. Please do not dictate to me what I must do. Is there a reason why you find other than scientific opinions less then worthy for this article? Thank you.Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 19:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The title is Scientific opinion on climate change. That is why 'other than scientific opinions less then worthy for this article'. This page is for discussing improvements to this article. The article Climate change consensus sounds like what you are looking for. If you were looking at an article on the Catholic view on the sanctity of marriageyou would not expect it to list the views of the Mormons or atheists. Dmcq (talk) 19:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Wiki is about NPOV before any article title. The current title serves a narrow point of view. GoRight has proposed a merger with Climate change consensus. I now propose this article is a content union with Climate Change and Opinions. If I were where looking for an example of how "heresy" were where excluded from Climate Change Opinions, I would look to the current state of this article. Kindly Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 20:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

You've got this neutral point of view thing wrong. It is about treating the subject dispassionately according to sources about the subject, it is not about some global consensus which extends down into each article. Please consult Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard if you disagree with that. Non scientific opinions are not the subject of an article about scientific opinions. There is no overall consensus in WIkipedia about articles, they stand on their own. Tghis is not conservapedia or something like that where the overall ethos of beliefs has to be respected in each article. If you believe the article should not exist then you may nominate it for deletion otherwise the subject of the article is what this discussion page is about and nothing else. Dmcq (talk) 20:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your concerns Dmcq, and I checked the notice board. Could you perhaps point to some specific guidance for me to address your views on a NPOV? I shared my specific references [5],[6]. It's difficult to asses "right" or "wrong" without some particular guidance. Frankly, it seems like a Non sequitur (logic) to argue one view is better than another when discussing NPOV ... if I understand correctly that is what you are attempting. With regards.Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 20:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Could you be specific please and give a particular place in the article which is not neutral or one fact you'd like mentioned somewhere in the article that would make it slight better accord to NPOV? Not a great big list of names, just one statement in the article or one statement you'd like to see in the article plus one citation for it. Then we can analyse it according to WP:NPOV aor pass it over to the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard to see what they think there? Thanks. Dmcq (talk) 20:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_9#Global warming should address most of your questions about NPOV and this article I believe. Dmcq (talk) 20:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I reviewed it. Am I correct in assuming that discussion treated "global warming" as an academic topic to refute other views? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 21:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe it was treated according to wikipedia policies in the noticeboard about neutral point of view. I take it you think the noticeboard did not treat it according to your interpretation of the policy WP:NPOV? If so this is not the appropriate forum, either the talk page of WT:NPOV or the village pump about policies WP:VPP are the places to discuss the problem if you think the noticeboard is applying policy wrongly. However in the interim I believe consensus here would side with any decision in that noticeboard. Dmcq (talk) 21:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm still looking for an answer to what ZP5's 'The filibuster is occurring over silly (waring) rules put forth by... is supposed to mean William M. Connolley (talk) 18:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

WMC, please tell me what you believe my statement means? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 19:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

You made a statement. It seems you are unwilling to explain it. And WMC please drop it if he doesn't answer the first time. If it is very relevant to the subject I'm sure they would try harder to get the point across. Dmcq (talk) 19:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Dmcq, I am willing to explain it and I would like to answer his specific misunderstandings. I would not like to make any false or bad faith assumptions about him. He can represent himself very well when he chooses. Thanks. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk)

You were asked to explain it and didn't. I have not asked for an explanation. There is no point in making obscure statements and requiring people to scratch around for meanings. Please discuss improvements to the article and lay off the puzzles, they don't help that I can see. Dmcq (talk) 19:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

This is directly relevant to the WQA "WoT" issue. Which Zp5 is nicely demonstating William M. Connolley (talk) 23:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposal 2 has enough consensus to be a goer, and the others are all non-starters. We can safely assume that it would be the most acceptable course of action. --TS 15:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

As I said, that proposal is stale and a non-starter as a result. It is addressing a NPOV tag that doesn't even exist at this point. The WP:1RR question was evaluated on its own and soundly rejected. --GoRight (talk) 18:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

That was my, in retrospect overly bureaucratic, proposal to reduce 3RR to 1RR. Repeatedly reinserting a contentious change without clear consensus is still edit warring. I have not decided yet whether to allow protection to expire in about 24 hours and block liberally, or extend the protection until the RfC closes or there is a clear indication here that the article will not again immediately descend into a battleground. Any advice on this matter is welcome here or at my talkpage. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposal 1 for the current protection.

In the interests of finding some truly middle ground here, please consider the following:

1. Remove POV check request from the top of the article.
2. Place a POV dispute template in the consensus section where it shall remain until disputes over that section and the consensus related redirects to this page are resolved.
3. Article down to semi-protection.
4. Normal editing rules apply.

--GoRight (talk) 19:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Support:

1. --GoRight (talk) 19:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC) (as proposer)

while reserving my right to subseqently support WP:1RR as a stand-alone issue ‒ Jaymax✍ 00:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I support the insertion of a POV section tag on Section 5 while it remains here. But, per below, protection levels are out-of-scope, and I like WP:1RR ‒ Jaymax✍ 03:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Comment: I don't know how many times I'll have to say this before you all will get the picture. Page protection levels are not determined by polling. The protection is going to expire in the near future, and if edit warring comes back, it will likely be protected yet again, and/or blocks will be dispensed. Asking for semi is nonsensical anyway, the protection was in response to edit warring, not vandalism by new or unregistered users. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I find polling is occasionally a useful way to get a quick feel for the level of consensus or discord around an idea. But not for supplanting discussion. But I see your main point that such polls should not discuss protection levels. (just like straw polls in jury rooms shouldn't consider likely sentences.) Fair enough, striking vote. ‒ Jaymax✍ 03:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

What is to be done?

It seems to be there are actually only three choices facing the editors of this article:

1. Find one or more reliable, third-party sources that provide significant coverage regarding the title of this article which be used to define or describe its subject matter of this article in order to comply with the requirements of Wikipedia's content policies;
2. If no reliable, third-party sources can be found to define the articles subject matter, then accept that this article is a content fork from the article Climate change (or some other topic), and arrange the merger of the two topics. For as it stands, this article's subject matter is so ill defined that its existence runs contrary to both WP:NPOV#Point of view (POV) and content forks as well as WP:NPOV#Article naming;
3. Accept that no conensus can be achieved, and continue to engage in content disputes, edit warring and deletion discussions, which would be symptomatic of this article falling outside the scope of Wikipedia's content polices, in particular WP:NOTOPINION.

The good news is that at least one reliable third-party sources exists[7] that could be used to define this article's subject matter, but what is really needed is at least one more so that it can be categorically "nailed down". This article suggests that this article is about the development or evolution of, or periodic changes in the Scientific opinion on climate change, rather than the opinions themselves, or specific instances of scientific opinion.
Once the subject matter of this article can be described or defined by an external source, I think you will find that the content disputes can be resolved without recorse to agruing over whose opinion is right or wrong. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Question: What about sources that describe 'Scientific Opinion' in the abstract, rather than GW specifically? Do these help, or are they valueless here? ‒ Jaymax✍ 10:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Ignore the abstract and read the paper where all the relevant issues are discussed.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

"what is really needed is at least one more" ? ‒ Jaymax✍ 10:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

...so there can be no dispute from relying on just one source to define this article's subject matter. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I should have been less obtuse. I read the paper you reference yesterday. You say we need more than one - I am suggesting that another might deal just with the 'scientific opinion' aspect. ‒ Jaymax✍ 11:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Until more sources can be found, I propose dropping the (unsourced) hat note, and adding the following paragraph as the lead:

Scientific opinion on climate change, as expressed by the United Nations-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, has repeatedly stressed that global warming is a serious problem and that governments need to respond to this challenge promptly. While the scientific agreement that global warming is taking place and that its consequences will be severe has been growing, it is not a universally held position among experts. Expert disagreement and uncertainty over global warming is particularly likely when scientists are asked to offer broad conclusions, such as the rate of global warming, potential effects, and policy suggestions, which involves value-laden and often contentious discussions of what should be.

Surveys of how scientists view the status of climate change research, conducted in 1996 and 2003, demonstrated a significant shift in scientific opinion regarding global warming, though there remains some disagreement about whether humans are responsible. There has been a significant increase in the level of expert confidence in some aspects of climate change research, most notably land surface processes and sea ice, but scientists remain uncertain about the accuracy of scientific models that offer predictions for future consequences of climate change.

I feel this source coverage of Scientific opinion on climate change represents a considerable improvement over the existing hat note and lead section. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 17:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Two problems with your proposal Gavin, (a) The source is a "political" science opinion, and (b)its a US organisation opinion and not a balanced world consensus option. Recommend looking for a source from climate scientists and a consensus opinion at that. Problems with vague wording "some disagreement", whats that then - 1%, 10% of scientific org opinions?.. or "scientists remain uncertain" about what exactly? this blurb gives a nice fuzzy interpretation of climate science as of today, with references to studies from 1996 and 2003, sure why not go back to the 70 and 60 for opinion, might water it down a bit more.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Windandsea (talk • contribs) 18:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Problems, problems, problems. I am not saying this citation is perfect, but in the absense of any good source about the title of this article, it has got to be an improvement. If you can come up with a better alternative, all well and good. But in Wikipedia, reliable secondary sources such as this are valuable additions to any article. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 21:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I would oppose this change for reasons adequately described already on this talk page.Airborne84 (talk) 04:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Gavin, please c.f. List of Conan O'Brien sketches. ‒ Jaymax✍ 08:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we will even find a source that is indicative of what any one or group of editors perceive to be the Truth™, but we can find sources that are verfiable and reliable, and replaced unsourced statements that are not. What ever objections Airborne84 has about this source, he needs to back up his assertions with some sort of reasoned arguement supported by evidence. Alternatively, if he can find a better source, then let him put it before us so we can verify it and check it for reliablity. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

GC, you're still operating from the incorrect premise that the hat-note consists of original research and needs changing. I can't count the number of times you've asserted this with no agreement from editors. To make it easier for you to read the paragraph in WP:DISRUPT on Tendentious Editing, I'll paste it below for you.

Here are some hints to help you recognise if you or someone else has become a problem editor

You find yourself repeating the same argument over and over again, without persuading people. If your arguments are rejected, bring better arguments, don’t simply repeat the same ones. And most importantly, examine your argument carefully, in light of what others have said. It is true that people will only be convinced if they want to be, regardless of how good your argument may be, but that is not grounds for believing that your argument must be true. You must be willing to concede you may have been wrong. Take a good, long hard look at your argument from as detached and objective a point of view as you can possibly muster, and see if there really is a problem with it. If there isn't, it's best to leave the situation alone: they're not going to want to see it and you cannot force them to. If there is a problem, however, then you should revise the argument, your case, or both.

Cheers. Airborne84 (talk) 17:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it fair to say that my proposal is the only one sourced by significant coverage from a reliable secondary source that is indpendent. If you have source that is at least as good as or better than this in the sense that it addresses the topic in detail and without original research, then bring it on, but so far we only have your opinion that the hat note is not original research, when what is need are citations to back up your viewpoint. Without a citation to support the hat note, you opinoin carries no weight what so ever. Accuse me of what you will, but the incluison criteria for a standalone article in Wikipedia is based on reliable secondary. So far you provided nothing that suggests that this topic is suitable for inclusion, other than asserting that the hat note is all that is need. To that I say the emperor has no clothes. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 23:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

"Two problems with your proposal Gavin, (a) The source is a "political" science opinion, and (b)its a US organisation opinion and not a balanced world consensus option."

(a) The source is NOT a political body, but a scientific intergovernmental body. Unless you want to change the Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change page too. (b) How is it NOT the balanced worldwide opinion??

"The Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change is the leading body for the assessment of climate change, established by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) to provide the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of climate change and its potential environmental and socio-economic consequences.

The IPCC is a scientific body. It reviews and assesses the most recent scientific, technical and socio-economic information produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of climate change. It does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters. Thousands of scientists from all over the world contribute to the work of the IPCC on a voluntary basis. Review is an essential part of the IPCC process, to ensure an objective and complete assessment of current information. Differing viewpoints existing within the scientific community are reflected in the IPCC reports."

I submit that the IPCC is in fact the ONE and ONLY expert source that does indeed summarise worldwide scientific opinion, because (i) it is created for that very purpose (ii) its reports contain information supplied by the worldwide scientists DHooke1973 (talk) 01:02, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't have the time to participate in talk page discussions

I just had a quick look now, but I'll be too busy in the coming few weeks to do much here. However, since the discussions here are going nowhere anywhere, I reserve the right to revert the page back to the current version which includes the hatnote defining "scientific opinion". Any inclusion of political opinions (even about the scientific opinion) is i.m.o. unacceptable. There exists a scientific opinion on climate science and it should be possible to have a wiki article that exclusively contains that scientific opinion which is 100% free of political noise, opinions of lay persons etc. etc. Count Iblis (talk) 01:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

So do you support replacing the existing consensus section with a brief comment and then a reference to the corresponding section in Climate change consensus? I've already shown that the section in that article is more complete than the one here. This would move the non-scientific opinion BASED discussions you want left off of THIS page to THAT page leaving this one uncontested (by me at least). --GoRight (talk) 01:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Iblis, I think all but one editor here pretty much agree with you, including most of those who see a NPOV issue. ‒ Jaymax✍ 03:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Count Iblis, your statement is right on the money. GoRight's proposal also seems reasonable in that it:

1. Doesn't represent an attempt to merge article on a huge topic that needs separate, structured articles.

2. Leaves the dynamics of a useful article (this one) intact and undiluted.

3. Directs readers interested in information on the "consensus" to a more complete article - adding to knowledge, instead of subtracting from it.

I'lll admit there were a couple of aspects to the article GoRight mentioned that merit adjustments though. Conversely, if the change isn't necessary to help solve a huge rift between the editors, it may not be warranted. Cheers.Airborne84 (talk) 03:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Count Iblis, are you under the impression that you WP:OWN the article? --Tjsynkral (talk) 04:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree 100% with Count Iblis. The inclusion of political or any other non-scientific opinions is unacceptable. This article is for people who want to cut through all the propaganda ("most scientists agree", "most scientists refute", "there's a consensus", "there isn't a consensus", "the consensus in growing", "the consensus in crumbling", "there's a growing body of skeptics", etc.) This article gives people what the scientific community actually says and in their own words. I also agree with GoRight and Airborne. If for nothing more than brevity, we should lose the whole consensus section. I've gone back and forth on this, but the word "consensus" is used in 7 of the statements this article quotes, and there's really no point in beating it over the readers' heads. Besides, the whole debate about "consensus" gets rather ridiculous with people arguing whether is means 100% unanimity or simply a vast majority (it actually can mean either). So, yes, the consensus section should go, and non-scientific silliness should stay out.--CurtisSwain (talk) 11:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

This would go a long way to resolving my NPOV concerns with this page. However, if people are not currently aware of it there is a movement afoot that would make my proposal above moot, see [8]. Now, if the Climate change consensus article is deleted and split between Public opinion on climate change and Scientific opinion on climate change I would find it acceptably NPOV to maintain a "scientific consensus" section in each of the two articles and cross link the two (i.e. the one here points to there and vice versa). Under that scenario the scientific position statements could stay in this article. --GoRight (talk) 17:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

That sounds quite reasonable.--CurtisSwain (talk) 21:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's completely reasonable that scientific position statements would stay in this article. If they didn't, this article would be blank. Anyhow, there seems to now be no objection to removing the POV tag immediately. Adding in a "see also" link to a "public opinion" page is fine, but has no bearing on the POV-ness of this page either way. DHooke1973 (talk) 23:22, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I had time to create a new article :-)

See: User talk:ZuluPapa5/Climate Change Opinions‎

This intends to:

1. Keep the purist "Scientific opinion" in a separate article. (With brief acknowledgment and link)
2. Content fork the surveys from here into the new article
3. Merge Economic opinion on climate change into a section
4. Save Public opinion on climate change into a "Historical opinion" section
5. Create space and balance for "Editorial opinion" and 'Advocacy groups" sections

I predict this article will long survive the horde of noise, before the tide rises to swallow the wiki servers and humanity. (Smile it's just humor.)

Being my last two creations were deleted. Let's talk about this content fork and union here please. Sincerely, Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 02:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

How does that topic really differ from Climate change controversy, and the more narrowly focussed Climate change consensus? (just realised abbreviating to CCC in talk isn't such a good idea) ‒ Jaymax✍ 03:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

That one is really called Global warming controversy. We don't need yet another page from ZP5 at the moment. Settle down William M. Connolley (talk) 09:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

WMC, as far as I am concerned, you may lead the way to merge in the CCC articles for which you have expressed disapproval. That could help moving things forward here. (smile) Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 15:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Good work ZuIu, I think it's a great idea that has lots of potential. Various groups of people have made public proclamations of their views of global warming/climate change, business groups, religious groups, etc. The article could become a valuable source for readers who want to know, "Hmm, what does the Catholic Church say about AGW? What do Buddists say? Economists? The insurance industry?..etc. However, you might want to change the title to Opinions on climate change. Your working title kind of sounds like the climate itself holds an opinion.--CurtisSwain (talk) 10:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, "Opinions on Climate Change" would be a better title and that article could serve as a NPOV over-arching article that links to this one for the scientific opinion. Other categories of opinion could start as sections within that article and if they get too big could be spun off like this one. We sould have to reconcile that article with Climate change consensus and Public opinion on climate change so that the purpose of each is clearly delineated. --GoRight (talk) 15:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

 Erledigt Agreed, I'll change the tile and post redirects for the draft old title. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 15:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Excellent idea, separation of science and all other options (media/political/economic/religious) can only help in adding clarity to this topic, as today there is so much noise generated by the fringe opinions and media opinions that they are presented on even paring with scientific opinions/papers/evidence based theories.
How will you divide the article weight for each category - in order of importance to average joe (eg political options first comprising of 25% of article length, next importance my guess is religious opinion 15% etc) Windandsea (talk) 14:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, let's work with something we already know and can easily quantify. For example, we know that the world's population is a little over 6.5 Billion and we know that some 2,500 scientists have a consensus on the scientific opinion. So, roughly (2,500 / 6,500,000,000) * 100 = ~0.00004% of the column inches should be dedicated to the scientific opinion in comparison to the rest. Make sense? --GoRight (talk) 15:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC) YMMV on my calculation for the appropriate weight of the scientific opinion. :)

Not sure i follow you GoRight. Are you arguing that each of the 6.8 billion personal opinions are of the same weight as scientific, political, media, religious org opinions, or are you just taking the piss because you dont approve of this new opinion article, that it goes against your own 'personal' opinions on climate change. if so, i suggest you create your own personal reflections blog. Windandsea (talk) 17:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Opinions must be from reliable sources for wiki, please. The 6.8 billion have a role in addressing the issues, but are off topic forum here. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 17:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Sorry, I guess I had my tongue planted a little too firmly in my cheek on that one. First, I am generally supportive of the article on opinions so your last bit doesn't seem to apply. As for the rest of my comment I was merely making the (tongue in cheek) point that when determining the relative "weight" of Public vs. Scientific opinion the applicable ratio would be 6.5 Billion to 2,500, roughly speaking. Obviously this is an upper limit, though, there could be other weighting approaches ... in reality there not only ARE other weighting approaches THEY would most likely be the ones actually employed. --GoRight (talk) 17:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I will start a talk page with FAQ for the draft article. Also, I believe that if "climate change" issues are going to progress in society for a meaningful purpose, they must be open to all disciplines, and not solely the realm of scientific research. As far as deciding weight, I propose to organize sections along the lines of disciplines found in a university. The weight will work it self out in space in balance to the sources. When necessary, separate content forks can be created for space expansion, as long as a balanced summary remains and the fork itself is balanced. For now, merging in other articles may be beneficial to bring these issues together in one place. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 14:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

"For now, merging in other articles may be beneficial to bring these issues together in one place." - Agreed. --GoRight (talk) 15:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

How this proposal covers this dispute

As stated above, this article would be summarized and content forked in the newly proposed balanced NPOV article. This discussion belongs here. Thank you. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 18:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I should place this template Template:Topic_co-ordination_link on the articles in question, yes?Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk)

No - you shouldn't. Because there is no consensus for such a discussion. (and in all cases it doesn't belong in article space). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:22, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Please notice the 2RR [9], [10], with no talk from the 1RR proposer. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 14:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

No William M. Connolley (talk) 14:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Question: What course of action will folks consent to for including content with the sources [11] listed? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 15:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Since most of those sources do not match the article's topic, they shouldn't. It is impossible to determine scientific opinion from single individuals, and from non-scientific sources, which i guess is a horse carcass that has been beaten to death by now. Some of these sources may have relevant places (according to weight) in Climate change controversy or other articles, but since they are indications of individual disagreement (or opinions from non-science sources) they do not belong here. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Pardon the persistence, what makes these sources a "Controversy", but for "Scientific Opinion"? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 19:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Try carefully reading my comment, you may also want to wander through all the other comments that have been made on this point. I see no merit in explaining the same thing again and again and .... --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I've gone through all the archives and participated in this talk for some time. What I've seen and agree with, is GoRight's assertion that this article requires greater space for acknowledgment of "controversies" to be balanced in a NPOV. My apologies, did you see that in the dispute here? I made several proposals to move forward, perhaps I should now share my draft RfC proposal? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 20:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, i have seen it, read it, and responded to it quite a lot of times. So have rather a lot of other editors. Making proposals that from earlier discussions have little to no support is a waste of time. You can submit your RfC if that is what you want - but please do not wave it around, whether or not there will be an RfC has no impact (or shouldn't have any impact) on how people see issues. (let me be more specific: If people are acting in good faith, then saying that this will end up with an RfC is not a way to change their views). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems strange to me that you are creating an article which covers the same area as Climate change controversy. And as far as I can see the reasoning is that you have some citations for climate change controversy that don't fit into this article so they should go somewhere else. I think you are trying to say they should be in this document but it looks like you've tried to change the name of his article so they would actually fit as they don't fit the current topic of this article. Could anyone explain what is happening here please? One reason for the controversy is because of the scientific opinions but putting it in this article would be completely against WP:WEIGHT. There are lots other reasons for the controversy that have nothing to do with scientific opinions - people wanting to keep their jobs, people not wanting to reduce their standard of living, general scepticism and conspiracy theories, religious nutters wanting to end the world or whatever. Dmcq (talk) 23:29, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Scope?

See climate change vs. global warming. We should use some consistent terminology, otherwise it's unclear what this is about. On a cursory examination it seems mostly about global warming, so I think it should be renamed. Pcap ping 11:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Global warming - increase in temperature Climate change - change in weather patterns Global warming is a behavioural subset of Climate change.. [Climate change] is the consensus scientific terminology used today, as it incorporates global warming, along with many other topics not mentioned in global warming article. Windandsea (talk) 14:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

See "Archive 9" for example ... "How about the title Scientific view on global warming and current climate change, since global warming is what is happening on average globally, while climate "change" is the local temporarily current disruptions due to the on average warming (the overarching current event). As a side-note, both of those terms miss the broader scope of gases & soot (greenhouse & "forcing agents"), deforestation, mass species extinction, rising oceans (with loss of dozens of small nations predicted), drying of soil & increased rainfall intensity (degradation of agriculture, loss of potable water), ocean acidification, softening of permafrost (buildings and trees falling-over) with methane leaks from the land and lakes (even catching on fire), ocean acidification (corals dying, shell of shelled sea animals softening and the collapse of entire ecosystems), etc ... being discussed at COP-15 by the vast majority of Heads of State of the entire planet. Polar bears dying-off and glaciers melting are minor in the big scope of the trends viewed around the world." 209.255.78.138 (talk) 14:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

So, the guys that promoted Global warming to FA status were all wrong and misguided? It seems that WP:UCN applies here. Pcap ping 15:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Locked

Discussion here still seems unresolved and bitter enough to give me a strong suspicion that edit warring would have resumed, so I have locked the article until just after the RfC concludes. If anyone else would prefer to unprotect now without waiting for the discussion below, you have my endorsement as long as you monitor the article aggressively afterwards. I would like to unlock this article for the reasons below, but if necessary to prevent disruptive and tendentious editing, the article may remain in semi-stasis edited only through {{editprotected}}.

The proposed merge target for Scientific opinion on climate change#Scientific consensus is in flux; this may or may not affect that proposal, as might this diff from GoRight, above. As at least the majority of the sources used in the section are solid and arguably on-topic, this question should not require protection; perhaps it could be rewritten to avoid bullet-point style. The several renaming discussions do not at this point seem disputatious enough to require edit-protection. Adding sources documenting views of non-scientific organizations or individual scientists would be out of the scope of the current title and article scope, and so discussion can be tabled until such a time as such a move has consensus. The issue of naming and targeting redirects has some bearing on this article, but does not justify protection. The wording and links in the hatnote have been discussed ad nauseum, but seem amenable to normal editing methods. Other dispute resolution mechanisms are in place or in preparation, but resumption of normal editing should not be dependent upon them. Assuming that it survives AfD, Public opinion on climate change should probably be linked somewhere in this article; excessive protection damages the encyclopedia.

For these reasons, I plan to unprotect the article in about a day, after everyone has had a chance to read and offer feedback on this section. The basic outline of #Proposal #2 has consensus, though not unanimity. The arguments offered in the surrounding sections, some of which are now archived, offer nuance and explanation to the bare poll. The {{POV-check}} has received input here, and no contrary input at WP:CNB. The tagging project has devoted a fair bit of effort to ensuring that the templated text does not take a position one way or the other, but its fundamental purpose is to attract interested editors. This article is actively edited, and other more effective input-gathering mechanisms are in place. For these reasons and none other, I plan to remove the tag in my capacity as an administrator enacting the clearly-expressed will of involved editors; had the article not been locked, I expect that it would have been removed already (again evidence that excessive protection damages the encyclopedia). Adding any similar tag will be considered prima facie evidence of edit warring; any editor who does so will be blocked for a short period to limit disruption. Removing any similar tag will be considered prima facie evidence of edit warring; any editor who does so will be blocked for a short period to limit disruption. Every non-trivial change to the article should include in the edit summary explicit reference to consensus at a talkpage section; for example: tag removed per Talk:Scientific opinion on climate change#Proposal #2 and Talk:Scientific opinion on climate change#Locked. Editors making repeated undiscussed obviously and blatantly controversial changes will be blocked for a short period to limit disruption and edit warring. Any material that is reverted is considered controversial, and should be discussed here before being reinserted. If a relevant talkpage discussion does not yet exist, the reverting editor should start one, clearly expressing his or her concerns. It is best practice to start the section before reverting the edit, and to include a compromise proposal. Please comment and advise. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Question: For clarification, how do you advise on (as restated by me) "Take the sources to the RS notice board", "Put the IPCC Mission in for context", "May I have the next RfC?" and "This dispute may be resolved by creating a Opinions on Climate Change" article points I have raised? Finally WP:1RR should be a voluntary measure at first. Kindly Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 20:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I oppose the removal of the NPOV tag until the disputes have been resolved. --GoRight (talk) 22:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC) (Obligatory Statement)

Question: You mention consensus for proposal 2 above. Does this mean that 1RR is in effect, and what are the parameters around it's meaning since this was unclear the last time it was brought up? Is this WP:1RR? --GoRight (talk) 22:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Question: What is the time limit, if any, associated with the adding and removing of NPOV tags? --GoRight (talk) 22:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The prohibition applies only to adding or removing such a tag without first gathering consensus here; if the editors here agree that adding or removing a tag is likely to lead to article improvement, then I support that. I left the time period deliberately open-ended in the hopes that at some point in the decently near future a consensus supported by everyone will develop and we can drop all this. If, after the current kerfluffle dies down, a proposal here detailing NPOV concerns goes unanswered, adding a tag would no longer be prima facie evidence of edit warring. - 2/0 (cont.) 02:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• Short version: only edit if consensus has been reached at a relevant talkpage section, referenced in the edit summary, or you are reasonably confident that other editors with whom you are collaborating will not object to the change. The latter condition applies primarily to grammatical fixes and other minor edits. If a change is reverted, follow WP:1RR and do not re-revert; instead, wait for the reverting editor to explain his or her concerns at the relevant thread here. A reverted edit should not be reinstated until such a time as consensus is reached here. - 2/0 (cont.) 02:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• Unlocked. Please edit only according to clearly expressed consensus. Any edit warring will lead to blocks, as this article has been protected too long already. I intend to monitor this article as closely as I can for the next little while, but if problems develop without speedy redress, please make use of WP:ANEW and WP:RFPP. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Re [12]. I'm not going to campaign for its removal, but I'd have preferred it not be made. I don't see any clear consensus for making that edit to a protected article. Also, I'm not terribly happy with the CCC article. William M. Connolley (talk) 09:38, 19 December 2009 (UTC)